1 2026:CGHC:25293-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 492 of 2026 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, School Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Block Education Officer Kasdol, District- Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) 8 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.23 14:52:00 +0530 2 ... Appellants versus 1 - Parmeshwar Prasad Jaiswal S/o Shri Malik Ram Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years Posted As Lecturer (L.B.) At Government Higher Secondary School Pisid, Kashdol R/o 172, Paras Nagar, Post And Tahsil Kasdol District Baloda Bazar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22-06-2026 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2026, application for condonation of delay. 2. On due consideration and for the reason mentioned in the application, I.A. No.02/2026 is allowed and the delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23-01-2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 647 of 2021 (Parmeshwar Prasad Jaiswal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent herein, along with other petitions, observing that:- “40. In the present cases, this Court finds that the issue has not yet crystallised into a challenge against a definitive policy 3 decision of the State. On the contrary, what emerges is an absence of a conscious, categorical and final executive determination on the core issue of reckonable service for pension in respect of employees like the petitioners. In such circumstances, any attempt by this Court to conclusively determine whether the service rendered prior to absorption must or must not be counted for pension would amount to pre-empting executive discretion and venturing into policy formulation. 41. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that pension is a welfare measure and a form of deferred compensation, and the long years of service rendered by the petitioners prior to absorption cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant. The fact that several petitioners would otherwise be required to complete ten years of service from 01.07.2018, thereby becoming eligible for pension only after 01.07.2028, despite having already rendered more than a decade of service under State control, raises issues of fairness, proportionality and administrative reasonableness, which are matters requiring due consideration at the policy level. 42. In the considered view of this Court, the ends of justice would be best served not by issuing a mandamus either granting or denying pensionary benefits, but by requiring the respondent- State to undertake a comprehensive and reasoned reconsideration of the determinative date of appointment for pensionary purposes in respect of employees whose service commenced as Shikshakarmis and later culminated in absorption into regular government service. Such reconsideration must necessarily take into account the 4 continuity of service, nature of duties performed, source of salary, administrative control, and the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 43. It is, therefore, clarified in unequivocal terms that this Court does not strike down or modify the existing policy, nor does it direct extension of any specific pensionary benefit. The formulation or amendment of policy remains within the exclusive prerogative of the State Government. However, any policy decision so taken must be clear, unambiguous, uniformly applicable and constitutionally compliant, so as to obviate further litigation and ensure predictability in service administration. 44. The State Government is accordingly expected to take a conscious, reasoned and categorical decision on the issue, including the question as to whether and to what extent the service rendered by the petitioners as Shikshakarmis prior to absorption in the School Education Department merits consideration for pensionary purposes, including the requirement of completion of ten years of qualifying service from 01.07.2018. 45. Needless to observe that any such decision shall be informed by relevant considerations, shall eschew arbitrariness, and shall conform to the constitutional guarantees of fairness, non-discrimination, and proportionality. It shall remain open to the petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law, should the policy decision so taken give rise to any cause for grievance. 46. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the writ petitions 5 (WPS/647/2021, WPS/12523/2025, WPS/8201/2024, WPS/8130/2024, WPS/4111/2021, WPS/5143/2023, WPS/2812/2023, WPS/1814/2021, WPS/2206/2021, WPS/2255/2021, WPS/2476/2021, WPS/2557/2021, WPS/3137/2021, WPS/3831/2021, WPS/3835/2021, WPS/3850/2021, WPS/2930/2021, WPS/4141/2021, WPS/4980/2021, WPS/2367/2021, WPS/5983/2021, WPS/6659/2021, WPS/416/2022 and WPS/1739/2022) are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/State have filed this writ appeal. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 325 of 2026 (The State of Chhattisgarh and Others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Patel and others) vide judgment dated 23-04-2026 observing as follows : “18. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellants/State is that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in directing reconsideration of an issue which, according to the appellants, had already attained finality and stood concluded. It has further been urged that the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of delay and laches, and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K. Sarkar1 (supra) and other judgments. 19. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid 1 Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 6 submissions. 20. A careful reading of paragraphs 45 to 47 of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Single Judge has consciously refrained from issuing any positive mandamus either granting or denying pensionary benefits to the respondents. The direction issued is neither in the nature of conferring any substantive benefit nor does it unsettle any existing policy. On the contrary, the learned Single Judge has adopted a restrained and balanced approach by requiring the State Government to take a conscious, reasoned, and policy- based decision on the issue. 21. It is significant to note that the controversy in the present case arises in a peculiar factual backdrop, where the respondents initially served as Shikshakarmis and were subsequently absorbed into regular government service. The question as to whether, and to what extent, the pre-absorption service ought to be reckoned for pensionary purposes involves consideration of multiple factors, including continuity of service, nature of duties, administrative control, and the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. These are matters which squarely fall within the domain of executive policy. 22. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, has rightly refrained from adjudicating upon such policy matters and has instead directed the competent authority to undertake an informed decision-making process. The clarification contained in paragraph 46 of the impugned order explicitly preserves the prerogative of the State in matters of policy formulation, thereby ensuring that there is no judicial overreach. 7 23. The contention of the appellants/State that the impugned direction amounts to revival of a stale or concluded issue is also misplaced. The direction issued is not for consideration of an individual or belated representation so as to attract the ratio of M.K. Sarkar (supra). Rather, it is a direction to the State to address a broader, systemic issue affecting a class of employees, which has continuing civil consequences and has led to recurring litigation. Such a direction, in our opinion, cannot be equated with the “consideration jurisprudence” deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In fact, the requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated timeframe advances the cause of transparency and accountability in governance, and ensures that the issue is examined at the appropriate level on relevant considerations. No prejudice, much less irreparable prejudice, is caused to the appellants by such a direction. 24. As regards the submission pertaining to judicial discipline and binding precedent, we find that the learned Single Judge has not taken any view in derogation of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Har Narayan Yadav2 (supra). The learned Single Judge has neither overruled nor disregarded the said judgment, but has merely directed reconsideration of the issue in light of existing legal and factual parameters. Therefore, the argument founded on alleged breach of judicial discipline is misconceived. 25. Similarly, the plea based on delay and laches, as well as the reliance placed upon the affidavit of the Secretary, Department of Finance, are matters which can appropriately 2 Har Narayan Yadav Vs. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and another (WA No.215 of 2017), decided on 07-01-2019 8 be considered by the State Government while undertaking the exercise directed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order does not foreclose any such contention and leaves it open to the State to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 26. We also find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order strikes a balance between judicial restraint and the need to ensure fairness in State action. The learned Single Judge has neither encroached upon the policy domain nor abdicated judicial responsibility, but has facilitated a lawful and structured decision-making process. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs.” They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 325 of 2026, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 325 of 2026, hence, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 325 of 2026. 9 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 23-04-2026 passed in WA No. 325 of 2026 (The State of Chhattisgarh and others Vs. Rajendra Prasad Patel and others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil